자동차운전면허취소처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 11, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class 2 ordinary) as of December 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “Around October 25, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a D-wing and 1 ton cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.109% at the front of the C Hospital located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Masan (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on January 12, 2016.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. In light of the fact that the driver’s license is essential to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is engaged in his/her occupation and support his/her family, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.
B. In light of the fact that traffic accidents caused by drinking driving are frequent and the results are harsh, etc., the necessity for public interest to prevent the traffic accidents caused by drinking driving is very great (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13214, Nov. 14, 1997). The Plaintiff’s drinking level falls under the criteria for revoking driver’s license under Article 91(1) [Attachment Table 28] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the disposition of this case is considerably unreasonable, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had an inevitable situation to make a drinking driving, and even before the instant case, the Plaintiff had the power to suspend or revoke the driver’s license due to drinking driving. Considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the public interest to achieve the disposition of this case is larger than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would suffer from the disposition of this case, and thus, the disposition of this case is an abuse of discretionary authority.